On Feb 16, 2009, at 10:55 AM, Eliot Lear wrote:
On 2/16/09 6:28 PM, Jim Fenton wrote:
(d). My suggested changes to Eliot's proposal are at
http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2009q1/011153.html
+1.
+1.
For what its worth, a reputation system can utilize an opaque i= value
to isolate messages identified as abusive, provided the number of such
exceptions is kept within a practical range. The alternative might
require each receiver to deal with abuse that might have been
consolidated by the i= value.
Dave's draft goes a bit too far when describing even the domain as
being opaque. Is this attempting to suggest the d= value is not that
of a domain?
While the i= value can be opaque, any language that appears to lessen
its relationship to that of on whose behalf the signature had been
added should also warn against overlapping real and fictitious
namespace if only to better support the uses described by ADSP.
-Doug
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html